On violence as a tactic

A correspondent concerned about the connotations of some of the commentary on this site sent the following–with which I agree:

Some patriots, especially the young, become frustrated and angry and want to take direct action. That is understandable because we are facing a life-and-death threat to our national existence and our political class is demonstrably failing to show leadership; indeed, major elements are leading the attack on the American people. But it is both morally wrong and tactically counterproductive to advocate or practice violence.

Reasons:

Moral.

The rule of law is critical for the maintenance of civilization. In many ways, it IS civilization. We might not like some of those laws but unless we limit our protest to legal means, we contribute to the slide to barbarity that has done so much harm.

Tactical.

Violence or its advocacy would allow our enemies to call down the full power of the state apparatus upon us. Even if we were strong and had a chance to win elections, it would be fatal to become outlaws. Many many Whites would feel compelled to withdraw their support. A movement that had taken decades to build would be dismantled overnight, its assets liquidated, its leaders jailed. And even if violence had a good chance of accelerating victory, going down that path would soil the vision of our New America. We want the freedom we seek to last; we want to set an example to other Western peoples and to other civilizations that will make our liberation permanent by setting it within a compatible international order. We can only do that by appealing to the highest personalities, to the natural aristocracy of other countries. Only then will they gain the moral courage to act in their people’s interests. We can only do that by being demonstrably decent, by being the sort of people they want to be. This is one of the practical implication of being a cultural Christian.